OCAMPO v ARCAYA-CHUA (MAHABA SOBRA!!!!

Focus nalang ako sa VAWC thingst na tinackle sa syllabus ng

kaso. RAWR)
-

Consolidated cases which stemmed from administrative complaints filed against respondent Judge Evelyn S.
Arcaya-Chua.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049 (one of the consolidated cases)

The OCA, through then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, informed the Office of the Chief Justice in a
Memorandum dated May 11, 2007 of the reports about the rampant selling of TPOs and PPOs in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 144, which was the sala presided by respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua.

It appears that on May 7, 2007, respondent Judge issued a TPO in the said case, granting, among others, the
custody of the subject minor, Rafi Pulliam, to therein petitioner, Albert Chang Tan, and directing therein
respondent, Stephanie Pulliam, to stay away from the home and office of Chang Tan as well as from the school of
the subject minor. (TPO IN FAVOR SA LALAKI!!!)
According to OCA, although it was not shown that Judge Arcaya-Chua received money from Chang Tan in exchange
for the issuance of the TPO, the facts clearly indicate that she was remiss in issuing the TPO. Her speedy issuance
of the Orders dated May 7, 2007 and May 8, 2007 not only showed her unusual interest in the case, but it also
appeared that the Order dated May 8, 2007 was tailor-fitted to suit the wishes of Chang Tan, as expressed in the
latter's heated argument with the OIC of Branch 144.
Respondent Judge explained that the May 7, 2007 Order is justified under Sections 8 and 15 of R.A. No. 9262, as
well as under Circular No. 03-04-04-SC, which specifically applies to a petition for custody of minors. Contrary to
OCAs finding that the application filed by petitioner Chang Tan in SP No. M-6373 did not contain the requisite
allegation of violence committed by therein respondent Stephanie Pulliam on her minor child, Rafi, paragraph 17 of
the Application was explicit that a complaint for child abuse was filed against Stephanie Pulliam, based on, among
other evidence, a handwritten letter of Rafi wherein she enumerated the many abuses that her mother had
committed upon her. The complaint for child abuse was attached as an annex to the Application as well as to the
Petition. Other annexes attached to the Application, mentioning in detail the acts of violence committed by
Stephanie Pulliam against Rafi, consisted of the statements of yaya Josie Leynes and Rafi herself, as well as the
Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Dr. Sonia Rodriguez.
ISSUE: WON issuance of TPO in favor of Albert Chang Tan is proper
SC: NO!
The Court upholds the finding of Justice Salvador Fernando that respondent Judge Arcaya Chua is guilty of gross
ignorance of the law for issuing a TPO in favor of petitioner Albert Chang Tan in SP Case No. M6373, since a TPO
cannot be issued in favor of a man against his wife under R.A. No. 9292, known as the AntiViolence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Indeed, as a family court judge, Judge Arcaya Chua is expected to know
the correct implementation of R.A. No. 9292.

Sama ko nalang din dito yung digest na nakuha ko sa internet for more more info ninyo. Nag-focus
naman itong digest na to sa baba (literal) sa isa pang kaso na finile kay Judge Arcaya. Iba don sa kaso
sa taas (again, literal). CONSOLIDATED CASES nga kasi siyaaaaaaa ang daming kung ano anong kaso
RAWRRRRR.
Ocampo v. Arcaya-Chua
AM OCA IPI # 07-2630-RTJ APR 23, 2010
619 SCRA 59

Facts: In an Order dated March 22, 2007, respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss. Francisco Ocampo
questioned the dismissal of his motion since Milan never presented any evidence to controvert the evidence which
he submitted in support of his motion to dismiss.
Francisco Ocampo, thereafter, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was likewise denied by respondent Judge
Arcaya-Chua in an Order dated April 3, 2007.
On that date, respondent Judge issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO), requiring complainant Ocampo to turn
over the custody of their minor daughters to his wife, to stay away from his wife's residence at 1211 West Ayala
Condominium, 252 Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City, to refrain from committing acts that would harass, intimidate or
threaten and create an unreasonable risk to the health, safety or welfare of their minor daughters and his wife, and
to provide monthly support of P50,000.00 to their minor daughters and his wife, exclusive of expenses for
medication and education.
Francisco Ocampo faulted respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua for issuing the TPO as the period to file his answer had
not yet expired when respondent Judge issued the said Order. Moreover, he was directed to give monthly support
of P50,000.00 to his wife and minor daughters, even if his wife alleged that he is not the father of the said minors
and in the absence of any factual finding as to the resources of the giver and the necessities of the recipient. In
directing the payment of support to his wife, respondent Judge also ignored the factual circumstances relating to
the adulterous relations of his wife and the pendency of the legal separation case based on his wife's sexual
infidelity and abandonment.
Francisco Ocampo further alleged that respondent Judge caused the implementation of the TPO as if it was a
matter of life and death. When her branch sheriff was not available, respondent Judge dispatched another sheriff to
implement the Order. At that time, Francisco Ocampo, his minor daughters and family were having their Holy Week
vacation. The sheriff went inside the house and opened the rooms against the will of the occupants and without
regard to their privacy. When the sheriff learned that Francesca and Fatima were still sleeping, he demanded that
they be roused from their sleep, even as Ocampo assured him that he will peacefully bring his minor daughters to
his wife. The sheriff also insisted that Francisco Ocampo pay the support of P50,000.00 right there and then,
although he was told by Francisco that he did not have such amount of money. Francesca and Fatima refused to go
with the sheriff, but because of the court order, Francisco Ocampo told them to go with him.
Issue: Whether or not the issuance of the TPO is proper.
Ruling: As regards the alleged suddenness of the scheduled TPO hearing, Justice Salazar-Fernando found
respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's explanation acceptable.
Justice Salazar-Fernando was convinced by the reasons why respondent Judge issued the TPO. A preliminary
determination of the facts of the case justified the issuance of the TPO as it appeared that the subject minors
therein were the illegitimate children of the petitioner, Milan Ocampo, having been conceived through artificial
insemination without the required written authorization or ratification of the husband, complainant Francisco
Ocampo. The pertinent provision of the Family Code states:
ART. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.
Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor
or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife, provided that both of them authorized or
ratified such insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of the child. The
instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry together with the birth certificate of the child.
Moreover, Milan Ocampo appended evidence of complainant Ocampo's alleged perversity and violent behavior. A
sworn affidavit of Emelita S. Valentino, narrating alleged perverse behavior of complainant Ocampo, as well as the
certification from the Philippine National Police of Meycauayan, stating acts of violence committed by complainant
Ocampo on Milan, were appended to the Petition. The totality of the evidence thus presented, while not exactly
conclusive, justified a prima facie determination of the necessity of a TPO.
On the other hand: in the case of A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs JUDGE
EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, the Court held:
Respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing a Temporary Protection Order
(TPO) in favor of petitioner Albert Chang Tan in SP Case No. M-6373, since a TPO cannot be issued in favor of a
man against his wife under R.A. No. 9262, the AntiViolence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
Indeed, as a family court judge, Judge Arcaya-Chua is expected to know the correct implementation of R.A. No.
9262.